Friday, May 31, 2013

The
National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr
Abu Ramadan, is urging the Supreme Court to review its decision allowing
any party aggrieved with the judgement of a presidential petition to
file for review.
He is also praying the court to review its decision not to sit on public holidays and weekends on a presidential petition.
The
court had on April 30, 2013, ruled that the directive by Rule 69 C (5)
of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), which provides
in part that "the court shall sit from day to day, including public
holidays, when hearing a presidential election petition”, was
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
In a unanimous
decision, the court held that a review of its decisions was a right
created by Article 133 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 133
(1) of the Constitution states: “The Supreme Court may review any
decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court.”
The decision
related to a suit filed at the court by the General Secretary of the
People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Bernard Anbataayela Mornah,
seeking “a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of
articles 133, 157, 93(2) and 11 of the 1992 Constitution, Rule 71B and a
part of Rule 69C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI
74) were unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no
effect”.
In an affidavit in support of his application for review,
Mr Ramadan, who is also a leading member of the “Let My Vote Count
Alliance,” a pressure group, said “although I was not an original party
to the constitutional writ titled Suit No. J1/7/2013 between Bernard
Anbataayela Mornah and the Attorney-General, a decision of which was
handed down by this Honourable Court, on 30th April 2013. I am
pioneering this review application in defence of the Constitution.”
He
argued that the decision under reference was not private in nature, as
it was public in character having far-reaching consequences for Ghana’s
constitutionally-sanctioned democracy and the rule of law.
According
to the applicant, the decision undermined the1992 Constitution itself,
the powers of the Judiciary had been unfortunately subordinated to the
Executive, the existing body of law and, procedure was thrown into
confusion, among others, which presented exceptional circumstances
which, respectfully, were compelling enough to persuade the Supreme
Court to review the decision of the court dated 30th April 2013.
“Furthermore,
I am advised by counsel that the purpose of a presidential election
petition was not a consideration at all in the exercise of the court of
its interpretative function of the constitution.
Hearing of the review application has been fixed for June 14, 2013.